« Tories will announce fully funded tax cuts on Tuesday | Main | Brown is lovin' his recession »

Comments

Daniel Finkelstein must be the last person in Britain who does not want tax cuts.

" Look at www.obamataxcut.com to see the power of the message"

100% agree. I registered taxinspector.co.uk back in late 2005 to do exactly this for the next UK election.

I even like the idea of wheeling around a portable tax inspector to towns around the UK to give people a chance to see exactly how they would benefit.

The Tories have left the tax cut territory truly unguarded. First the LibDems moved their tanks onto it, and now Labour could steal it as their own.

If the Tuesday Tory tax announcement is not bold, the tax-cutter title will be game on.

Dave and George have run out of credibility now, haven't they? David Davis is a bit too rough. Hmm..step forward:

drum roll...

Nigel FARAGE!

I read Fraser's article last night, maybe I am wrong, but the list of mistakes made by McCain and his team while up against the charismatic Obama does appear to indicate Fraser latching onto one small aspect of his defeat because it fits his criticism of the Tory economic policy right now.

It is ridiculous to try and compare Cameron to McCain, there are too many glaring inconsistencies, not least the fact that the Tories have been in opposition the whole time the Republicans have been in power.

David Cameron successfully re branded his party, earning them the right to be listened to again by the electorate. McCain was always going to struggle no matter how good or bad his message was, the Bush administration has turned the Republican brand toxic right now.

Instead of desperately trying to find the arguments to fit their narrative, I wish some of the right leaning media would concentrate more on *explaining* why the polls are not reflecting the Westminster media assumptions, no matter how desperately they spin it.

We no longer give tax relief on debit interest and, similarly, should no longer charge tax on credit interest. Were it not for tax, savings rates would be just about keeping up with inflation. As it is, tax is causing savings to lose value in real terms. Sadly, Conservatives are no longer allowed to propose tax cuts that benefit the prudent.

With Corporation Tax and Business Rates combined, we tax our profitable businesses into the ground (or overseas). It’s obvious that they are far better placed to invest their profits than the state is. Sadly, Conservatives are no longer allowed to propose tax cuts that benefit wealth generation.

No, everything we do has to be about helping borrowers, lending and the housing market – remaining in denial that these were the very things that got us into this mess. So let’s go the whole way: a reintroduction of MIRAS, please. The bigger the mortgage the more tax relief you get.

I agree entirely with Mark Fulford @ 09.53. We have even reached the ludicrous stage in this country where shareholders (ugh!) are reviled as money-grubbing capitalist thieves by this government and some of the media. The thought that there might be some who are actually making money out of the economy is mystifyingly looked upon as immoral. So when a Bank is taken into public ownership, or a major holding is "bought" by this government (with public money, I might add) and shareholdings become virtually worthless, "good" trumpet many of the anti-capitalists. The fact that our economy is kept afloat by private investment (including that by pension funds and charitable causes) is disregarded. The results are as Mark Fulford has outlined above. It is time our people were educated into taking a more realistic view and brought to an understanding of how the world works, outside the collapsed and discredited Marxist regimes that believe confiscation of private means is beneficial. It`s enough to provoke a real rant!

You can't have it both ways. Every goverment in existence has talked about "efficiency savings", but they are very hard to find, just a fraction of a percent.

To lower taxes you either need to borrow or cut services. I think that is an intellectually defensible position, and I'd like to see the Tories propose it. Surely in this "mountain" of wasteful government expenditure you must be able to find some services, perhaps some whole departments you think are either uncessary or that the private sector could do better?

I mean, we spend a disproportionate amount on the police, on defense, on prisons compared with most other countries. I'm sure there is room for cuts there - we could leave Iraq tomorrow. We'd get £17bn just by not replacing Trident. And, a single person on benefits gets £8.75 a day. That could be cut. BERR is a waste of space - let's abolish it altogether.

So, choose which services you want to cut, and pass the savings on to small businesses and savers - our wealth creators.

I agree with the general gist of this article; that the Conservative proposals mustn't be so tiny as to be completely dwarfed by what the government proposes. However, it is also important that the Conservatives maintain the moral high-ground on this. Brown's tax cuts - funded by borrowing - are not an impressive feat, or indeed good economics. It would be like me taking out a £1,000,000 loan and then boasting about being a millionaire. It still has to be paid back, and is going to cost me more in the long-term. On the other hand, if I ran a business, made it more efficient, cut back on waste, and made my money through that, that is something which can be applauded. From the get-go, we need to dispel this unfounded nonsense that Labour will spout - and which indeed Resident Leftie has already gotten a start on - that what we'll be cutting are policemen, doctors and teachers. Obviously these proposals will be costed, but it would also be worth highlighting other areas of government waste. And at the same time we need to stress that Brown's plan increases the already gigantic national debt, is actually riskier, and that he's playing around with money he doesn't actually have in order to look good. In other words, unfunded tax cuts...

Once again our Treasury team are playing 'catch up'.

"To lower taxes you either need to borrow or cut services. I think that is an intellectually defensible position...."

No, Resident Leftie, it is not an intellectually defensible position. You do need to cut expenditure but not necessarily services. You leftie types never seem to accept the fact that money can be, and often is, wasted.

There are about 750,000 additional public servants (excluding doctors, nurses and policemen) more than there were when Labour came to power in 1997. Nearly all these additional posts could go along with all the quangos which do not provide useful technical advice. This would save, maybe, £50 bn. Leaving the EU would save a further £15Bn in membership fees and cutting foreign aid, other than for the immediate relief of unforeseeable natural disasters, would save a further £5bn.

So, without trying very hard, I have shown how some £70bn (more than 5% off GNP) could be saved.

What a pity the Tories have not the guts to take this up!

Personally I don't believe the Conservatives should be coming up with any specific proposals, but they should be arguing their case for following a certain course of action. Specific proposals are for the Governments, for an opposition to come up with a proposals will either invite them to be rubbished or else nicked.

You do need to cut expenditure but not necessarily services. You leftie types never seem to accept the fact that money can be, and often is, wasted.

I think, to them, though they aren't wasting money - they see all the red tape and other useless stuff like too much health and safety as a service.... I'm not sure they create waste on purpose (well, some) but have the intention of doing something.
So what a normal person sees as unnessicary waste would be cutting a service to others.

I think David_at_Home has it about right. Any one of his suggestions would go down well with the public except, possibly, cutting foreign aid which offers Labour endless possibilities for cheap shots. Can anyone tell me why raising the tax threshold to 10-15k pa isn't achievable? John Redwood must, by now, have identified many areas which would not suffer if funding were cut. Small state and low taxes please.

Just to amplify my point about cutting foreign aid.

I am absolutely for aid concerned with immediate relief after earthquakes, tsunamis, destruction by plagues of locusts, typhoons, unforeseeable floods, volcanoes, etc. I think that our capability in the area should be expanded, primarily based on the armed services but also on other organisations that have specialist expertise in these matters. I think it reasonable that we should also help people, both financially and in practical ways, to get back on their feet after such natural disasters.

Additionally I could be persuaded that there can sometimes be a case for providing real genuine technical expressive (NOT "Management Consultancy") in areas such as water processing, agriculture, civil engineering and, of course, medical services.

BUT I just do not believe the bulk of foreign aid is constructive. It breaks the link between the ruled and the rulers, undermines local enterprise, creates dependency and, in the case of food aid, can prolong civil conflict. For example, in Darfur and the Congo, anything we do over and above diplomatic assistance will probably make matters worse. Of course, if we were to send a Governor, a cadre of district commissioners, a battalion of the Black Watch and really rule these places then peace might be restored. But those days are long gone and will not come back.

Yes, Gordon Brown is a disgrace. He led us into this mess BUT he won't be there to sort it out, as usual Labour will leave that to the Conservatives.

"Low taxes and small government. Cut waste in government, although leave doctors, nurses, the police and teachers alone" seems to be what is suggested above. "In particular, look at the 750,000 plus State employees that have been taken on since Labour came to office in 1997. We might also include the Regional Assemblies and other quangos here."
A very sound proposal taken in isolation. However it will be necessary to bear in mind that the people who are up for the chop, and their families, have votes. These will total more than 1,000,000 no doubt. We will be inviting them to become light bulbs voting for a power cut, so although the principle is correct, its implementation as policy will not be easy. Don`t forget either such matters as pensions, redundancy payments, the dole and other connected expenses that will fall when cuts are made, so it will need careful management when the time comes.
In the meantime, Labour will be making sure that the client voting sector they have created will be left in no doubt that a Tory government will put them out of work.Hmmm!
The next election will not be easily won and we must be careful to remain honest while not losing sight of our ultimate goal. Now there`s a challenge for the politicians.

I absolutely agree, Susan, and if the Tory proposals don't come from this wellspring all they can do is tinker around the edges, play with reliefs they have already proposed, and watch as Labour fight back with their ideology.

I had a feeling this was going to be the case.

DAH - "waste" savings inevitably mean defining waste, and that is inherently subjective. Although the bureaucracy has grown over the last twelve years and there are possibilities for savings in terms of services, one man's waste is another man's vital administration. Savings from bureaucratic cock-ups are not going to add up to enough to say that we are genuinely only cutting waste and not actual spending on service provision. Moreover, bureaucracy always produces some sort of wastage in the system, just like there is always a factor for human error in electoral fraud.

We have to be honest - if we are cutting taxes and not borrowing to finance them, they will either be tiny and not worth the effort, or large and dependent on cutting some form of services. I would rather in the long term see a government who was prepared, for example, to introduce a minimal cost to non-emergency medical services for those in work, such as doctor's visits, which would probably allow us to pass the savings to the consumer in a modest tax cut. It works in other mature countries in Europe and would mean disposable income elsewhere. It already largely works in dentistry.

As it stands, the Tories' perennial attempt to find cuttable "waste" in the system so it can offer substantial tax cuts is foolish and potentially unworkable. What happens if we cut an office here and there and then find services are being cut back too? IIRC last time round we were projecting the ability to make tax cuts by gradually reducing overall spending. Personally I thought that was a good way of squaring the circle, and we got half-way on the back of it (and would probably get all the way at a genuine election if we were facing the majority we are now - forget the poll lead, if we don't do something now it will wither away properly; the latest poll was taken before Glenrothes so the merest perception that Labour are still managing to maintain their vote will help them).

However that means real policy commitment, so I don't expect to see it any time soon from CCHQ. My problem is not with the underlying arguments so much with the leadership who don't have the balls to spell out anymore what got us a fair number of marginal seats last time.

You can't continue to provide exactly the same services within a smaller budget. There are efficiency savings to be had, but they are not great. Every single government of every complexion says they will "cut waste" but somehow it's just tinkering at the edges. They'll get you your mouse.

Of course, we can differ on what a "service" is, and you need to list out these "non-services" and tell us which you will cut.

David_at_home thinks that cutting services to pay for tax cuts isn't intellectually defensible. He's a very peculiar right winger.

As to the idea that Labour has gone on a public sector employment spending spree, consider this:

Public sector employment (G9B7) stood at 23.1% in 1992 and 20.4% in 2005, and is now back down to 19.5%. In other words, there are fewer public employees as a percentage than there were under the Tories, but far more police, doctors and nurses.

Sources:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=1292
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/pse0908.pdf

If the latest polls are right Louise then we will be taking many marginals and some Labour and Liberal seats once considered safe.
So looking for government waste is unworkable and foolish. That really is a new one on me!
Personally I hope that if George does announce tax reductions they will be far better costed than they were in 2001 or 2005.It was the fact that we were widely disbelieved on economic matters then that led to those heavy defeats.

Who believes that the Government is spending every penny of every pound wisely?

We simply need to say that for three years the state will live on the same income and not a penny more. Every public sector manager will be incentivised to find economies. The mistake is to announce economies from on high - remotely and unaware of the detail. But a new budgetary discipline should be used to bring borrowing and taxes down.

In any business with which I have been involved there has been a direct relationship between the numbers of employees and the expenditure.

So the, outside of obvious areas of financial leakage such as the EU, if we want to cut expenditure then we should cut the number of employees and others on the payroll such as the receivers of benefits.

The trouble is that, politically, this is almost impossible to achieve since it would line up large groups of disgruntled voters against the government of the day. So, probably things will have to get a lot worse before any political party finds the backbone to do what is necessary.

Posted by: Tim Montgomerie | November 10, 2008 at 13:30
We simply need to say that for three years the state will live on the same income and not a penny more. Every public sector manager will be incentivised to find economies.

A abitrary spending freeze with a financial incentive to cut expenditure? I think this an excellent Tory policy.

Do you mean an inflation-proofed freeze, or a real-terms decline? Presumably this requires public-sector real-term wage cuts and public sector redundancies, too. Hard medicine, but certainly a real policy driven by genuine right-wing economics.

Malcolm - if the polls are right now it doesn't matter. What matters are the movements over a general election campaign, not in the mid-point of a parliamentary term when voters have not yet had to think seriously.

A common error with a lot of oppositions in this position, particularly Labour in 1982 and 1991, say.

Tim - a good idea in theory, but it will be ripped to pieces by Whitehall, as will any policies to reduce "waste".

@Malcolm re: George - don't hold your breath. If Portillo and Letwin were unable to do it then Osborne - still rather marginalised - won't be able to square the circle. I'm already getting the feeling these cuts will be as much sleight of hand as Brown's will be. He always has the initiative because he is in power, but the Tories will have to be louder and noisier right the way through to the election to make sure the polls stay the way they are now during the election campaign. I'm concerned they are just window-dressing and are going to be too timid to even come close to what's needed to really kickstart the economy and give people more disposable income.

If a scheme like Tim's would work, then great. But I don't see them adopting it in the same breath as trying to maintain spending for a lot of the rubbishy "waste" agency ideas they've floated over the last year or so. The problem is we just don't have a real silver bullet to kill Labour off.

Tax cuts are good - they will put some money in peoples pockets.

That is the first part of a solution - however there is another part - to maintain the economy that money needs to circulate - not be ferreted away...

Does anyone think they know how to persuade those people to spend?

Yes - there are millions of such people, small businesses and entrepreneurs - millions of people all keen and eager to expand the economy - a massive army of people held back by nothing more that central planning and government red-tape.

Cut the red tape, remove the barriers, let them get to work.

Cut spending on public sector works, instead encourage businesses (especially small businesses) in the private sector, re-invigorate the spirit that got 'the dragons' and others started, the spirit that labour have been trying to extinguish for over a decade.

Resident Leftie,

"He's a very peculiar right winger."

Not sure I'm all that "right wing", Leftie. Once at a social event long ago, a rather silly young man with whom I worked, informed my late Mother that I was a communist. She looked a bit taken aback and a boyhood friend of mine, who overheard the comment, burst out into loud guffaws.

Both “right wing” and “left wing” modes of thinking act as an intellectual straight jackets. I wish to preserve the UK as a sovereign nation, I wish it to be a prosperous nation and I believe we have a duty to provide both safety nets for those who fall by the wayside and ladders of opportunity for those who wish to climb up. Outside of these basic givens, I think all else should be open to debate.

At a public meeting during the 2005 General Election campaign, I foresaw the present financial crisis by pointing out that, as a nation, we could not, forever, spend about 5% more than we earn. I asked the assembled candidates what they intended to do about this. The Labour candidate said it was all too difficult for her and said we would have to ask Gordon Brown (for this she was loudly booed); the Tory candidate expressed the hope that it “would all just settle down” but, afterwards, asked me if I had sold my shares. This true story seems to encapsulate the positions of both our main parties!

“There are efficiency savings to be had, but they are not great”

Every large organisation for which I have worked, both private and public has been spectacularly inefficient and has had immense scope for reductions in expenditure without damaging the core business. The trouble is that few people have the moral courage to make the necessary cuts until the situation deteriorates so badly that there are massive redundancies and/or the business goes belly up. That is what has happened to the UK.

What confuses me is how the Tories can announce any tax cuts when they have been telling us for so long that they can't do so until they get into power and 'look at the books' to see how bad things are.

They still haven't seen the books, but as soon as Brown hints at cuts, suddenly they try to trump him but getting in there first.

If they can offer tax cuts now, why couldn't they do this at conference?

Once again the Cameroons are waiting for Brown to name the tune before they start dancing.

I share your confusion about Camerloon economic policy GB£.

The Tories are all over the place. The Government in general and Gordon Brown in particular come across as well informed and in command.

This is, of course, quite unjust, since the Government was a major party to this economic crisis whereas Her Majesty’s Opposition were merely fast asleep on the job and so failed to see the storm clouds gathering over the years.

" I would rather in the long term see a government who was prepared, for example, to introduce a minimal cost to non-emergency medical services for those in work, such as doctor's visits, which would probably allow us to pass the savings to the consumer in a modest tax cut."

Very convenient suggestion Louise, that would effectively trash all the hard work done by David Cameron and the party on the issue of NHS over the last 3 years. And it would hand this Labour government one hell of a political stick with which to beat us.

By concentrating on making savings in public spending which has been so prolific under this government, we effectively use a silver bullet against this government, and they know it. They have quite a reputation now for expensive waste, and it backs up the very vital point that Cameron and Osborne are trying to put forward, you cannot borrow your way out of a recession if your credit card is maxed out.

Remember, it was only in May this year that Cameron totally dismissed the idea of being able to identify a list of savings to enable tax cuts.

“But I do not believe in simplistic lists of cuts. In naïve over-estimations of potential savings. Or in cobbling together a big number in order to get a good headline.

He kept telling us that he needed to see the actual books first before he could begin to promise tax cuts.

Are we really supposed to believe that just six months later, and just a few hours after Labour hint at tax cuts, without any access to those books, and having dismissed the notion of identifying savings, the Tories have suddenly just identified a list of savings to fund cuts?

Are Cameron and Osborne now cobbling together a big number in order to get a good headline?

I told them over the years David_at_ but even though I am a genuine public school man and offspring of a lord, would they listen?

They would not.

They knew I WASN'T a Buller man.

ChrisD has come up with a quality slogan:

'You cannot borrow your way out of a recession if your credit card is maxed out!'

Very true Christopher.

"Are Cameron and Osborne now cobbling together a big number in order to get a good headline?"

I hope not, and just listening to the radio I don't believe people will be taken in by them either. For though we have had precious little argument from Westminster other than slogans, people have figured out that having borrowed and spent our way into this recession, they aren't going to be taken in by the argument that we can get out of the hole we're in by borrowing and spending even more, as emails to BBC's R5live this afternoon are pointing out.

Are Cameron and Osborne now cobbling together a big number in order to get a good headline?

Probably... but those that care are voting for them already - ie. if there was a GE tomorrow, you'd still vote tory?
So they have to go after the fickle voters that seem to be impressed by the big number and unthought-through polices (why else did brown bounce if there aren't such people?)

But yes, they should feel dirty doing it.

oh, and on your 33% of tories disagree I think you are being a bit disingenuous as I would think conservatives generally think "never say never" and I nearly didn't say never on the survey because of that.
I wonder if it was worded to say "baring extreme circumstances, such as 97% of Britain falling into the sea, we should never join the euro" the result may be different. Maybe I'm being too ingenuous though.

There is a world of difference between long term, strategic, permanent tax reductions (which need a carefull look at the books); And emergency tactical cuts to minimise the damage that browns big bust will visit on u
s all.

The tories current tax proposals are a very good move, and they need make no difference to the long term strategy.

I saw a suggestion that all labour voters should be subject to a 'Gordon Brown Tax' as they are most responsible for landing us with this mess, the money raised to be used to give tax rebates to all who didn't vote Labour. Maybe the shadow front bench could be persuaded...

As to the idea that Labour has gone on a public sector employment spending spree... consider this: -- Resident leftie, cherry picker.

In the years 1992 (when the data series began) to 1997, public sector employement (PSE) fell from 23.1% to 19.5%. The rate of reduction was fairly constant. So while New Labour have kept PSE static as a percentage, in a time of booming employment they ended the downward trend and increased PSE numbers in absolute terms. So I invite you to consider this: as private sector employment contracts, PSE is about to become much bigger as a percentage.

In absolute terms, since 1997 PSE has risen by 550,000 -- enough to fully populate York, Exeter and Coventry. Where are these new public employees?

Since 1999:

- 23,000 fewer in HM Forces;

- 53,000 in the police, but only 17,000 more actual police officers (21,000 more civilians);

- 250,000 more in the NHS, but only 122,000 of those are doctors or nurses. 130,000 more in the NHS doing what?

- two new admin staff for every new teacher (data at DCSF seems wildly out -- really 590,000 more school staff?);

- 71,000 more in public administration. Doing what? Administering the new taxes, no doubt.

Resident leftie, to persuade me that no cuts are possible you've got to tell me that we see value for money out of these new public sector employees.

All in all, I do not see the level of improvement in public services that we should expect for such massive increase in spending. I appreciate that reducing the size of the public sector has a terrible impact upon real people, but my sympathy is limited until they're equally prepared to guarantee my job.

Blame should fall very squarely on this government, who take the credit for growth in employment but do not explain where those jobs were created, who took them and how a dwindling workforce is supposed to pay for them.

Sources:
http://www.econstats.com/uk/uk_pse___.htm
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb1307.pdf
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000813/SFR262008_tables.xls
http://www.nhsconfed.org/issues/about-1857.cfm


I just cannot believe that Osborne has reignited his fight with Mandelson with his article in the Standard today. What is he thinking of?

Two Conservative principles are tax cuts, and living within your means. That is what David Cameron wants to do, and we owe him our support for it.

Maybe he thinks Mandy got lucky in the first bout?

Perhaps. I guess boxer Osborne wants to see Mandelson battered around the ring.

I don't think that one line counts as reignition, GB£, but it's a good thing that Osborne doesn't appear to be shrinking from Mandleson.

The inefficiencies in the economy - both in the public sector and the private sector have balooned over the 16 years of economic growth - although the last 5 years have been debt fuelled growth, where the government grew at an alrming rate.

I am afraid that there is no panacea to the current ills and Cameron should be sensible and not promise tax cuts. Instead, cameron should be very bold in articulating the need to dismantling all the layers of petty regulations and the army of clip=board wielding form fillers. Sure, this will have an effect of public sector jobs - but please do not hide them in quangos away from London- but will help to boost economic activity.

Get rid of the FSA and transfer the responsibility of banking supervision to the BoE.

Chnage the current short termism in the city - bonus award should be based on the past years performance - but realisable only after 5-7 years. This will reduce the urge for financial engineering on the part of the asset-strippers.

Introduce mandatory cuts in university places for mickey mouse degrees.

Reduce the inimum wage to £5.00 per hour.

Cameron should not reduce the fuel duty - in fact increase them, but increase winter fuel payments to pensioners. Oil is a dwindling resource and we cannot afford to transfer such vast amount of wealth to unstable (and potentially hostile) regimes.

Get rid og the dicredited tax credit and incerase personal allowances.

Be honest and tell the public that big government is not the solution.

Mark Fulford said:

Blame should fall very squarely on this government, who take the credit for growth in employment but do not explain where those jobs were created, who took them and how a dwindling workforce is supposed to pay for them

The public/private divide has remained constant across what you rightly describe as a n "employment boom" under Labour; both sectors benefiting from each other and Labour policy. Increasing the size of the public sector has had a beneficial effect on the private sector - they don't work in isolation.

The level of support staff for doctors, nurses and police officers has remained constant or declined, for example the NHS is very management light compared with similarly sized private sector organisations - 2.7% of the staff are managers. The NHS currently employs 128,210 doctors, 399,597 nursing staff, and 36,499 managers.

And the quality of treament has improved, waiting lists have shrunk, etc. Read your own sources:

http://www.nhsconfed.org/issues/about-1857.cfm

Reigniting anything when he is supposed to be focussing on the economy is plain daft. He should let sleeping dogs lie on this, but is obviously too foolish and too hotheaded to be messing with the big boys.

We would all like to see Mandelson taken down a peg or two, but not when we need to keep the attention focussed where it matters most to others.

resident leftie you're surpassing yourself today. I hope you're not the only Labour activist who believes the tractor production statistics. You know the ones "The NHS is better than ever! Crime falls to new all-time low! Gordon Brown greeted by garland-waving schoolchildren crying tears of real joy".

Meanwhile back in the real world. We've just had to cut our budget by 30% and make a similar proportion of our headcount redundant. We're entering the third year of a real terms spending freeze. It's horrible, but here in the private sector the alternative is not to exist. I thought leadership was about making tough decisions? What's so tough for a government to say "let's just ramp up the debt more and more and more; after all, we'll be long gone by the time it has to be repaid". Not tough, just gutless, Gordon.

Enough is enough. I trust David Cameron and his Shadow Cabinet to put forward the policy needed to dig our country (the UK) out of our current ditch.

We've had eleven years of a Labour govt and the pain is almost unbearable, notwithstanding the 'tender ministrations' of the EU.

We need to see DC, day in, day out, on news programmes.

The public/private divide has remained constant...

Yes, exactly what I said. PSE was getting smaller but, under Labour, it became a constant percentage. Answer this though: will it remain static as the private sector reduces?

Increasing the size of the public sector has had a beneficial effect on the private sector - they don't work in isolation.

You mean that public spending trickles down. In that case why have even more and faster?

Read your own sources

LOL. The confederation of NHS trusts says that NHS trusts are doing a great job. I was there for the raw data on frontline staff.

However, to be honest, I have least issue with the increased spending on the NHS. I think most Conservatives share that view.

Having said that, you should know that the 2.7% is specifically "managers". Taking Manchester as a normal example, you'll find that 35% of the workforce is "admin and clerical". And taking the NHS as a whole, you'll find that admin costs have risen from £3.6 billion in 1997 to 6 billion (and climbing) in 2005. That this management cost is a smaller percentage only underlines the degree to which NHS spending has increased.

As I said, the NHS isn't our real bugbear. I have much more of a problem with, for example, the 71,000 new public administration staff. They'll be costing us around £3bn a year, excluding future pension liabilities (which, according to Gordon, don't count).

Sources:
http://www.manchesterpct.nhs.uk/document_uploads/Equality_and_Diversity/Copy%20of%20HR%20Board%20Report%20April%2007%20to%20March%2008%20Final.xls
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds06/text/60123w02.htm

Good to see the standard article

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23584248-details/Bringing+back+Peter+is+the+last+nail+in+Gordon’s+coffin/article.do

George stepping firmly up to the plate.

Having said that, you should know that the 2.7% is specifically "managers". Taking Manchester as a normal example, you'll find that 35% of the workforce is "admin and clerical". And taking the NHS as a whole, you'll find that admin costs have risen from £3.6 billion in 1997 to 6 billion (and climbing) in 2005. That this management cost is a smaller percentage only underlines the degree to which NHS spending has increased.

This absolute increase is due to the massive increase in front line staff! The percentage of admin staff has declined over all in percentage terms since the Tories were in power:

1997 - Administrative costs 6.1%
2005 - Administrative costs 4.9%

1997 - Management costs 5.1%
2005 - Management costs 3.7%

So, that's massively more spending on the NHS nearing EU average spending in fact, decreased administrative and management costs, which compare very favourably to the private sector. I think a lot of this is down to the reduction in adminstrative costs for the risibily ideological "internal market" which screwed things up so badly.

71,000 additional admin staff is broadly in line with percentages of admin staff in 1997.

Better education, better health care, better public transport all improve the environment for the private sector, and cutting back public expenditure in a time of recession just leads to massive unemployment (as you may have learnt from your last time in power). A huge proportion of the money spent under Thatcher was simply subsidizing economic inactivity. It's better to spend it maintaining public infrastructure and the services people need more than ever in a downturn.

True Blue, admin staff didn't need the reduction in hours that our doctors did to keep in line with the working time directive. When doctors were working 100 hours per week and now 50 hours we needed twice as many to do the same amount of work didn't we? So wouldn't it follow that the % of admin staff in ratio to doctors, working much reduced hours, explain it being broadly in line.

Posted by: a-tracy | November 11, 2008 at 13:26

True Blue, admin staff didn't need the reduction in hours that our doctors did to keep in line with the working time directive. When doctors were working 100 hours per week and now 50 hours we needed twice as many to do the same amount of work didn't we? So wouldn't it follow that the % of admin staff in ratio to doctors, working much reduced hours, explain it being broadly in line.

That might account for it. I think I'll look into it more deeply.

"Daniel Finkelstein must be the last person in Britain who does not want tax cuts."

Will the last person who doesn't want Danny please turn out the lights?

True Blue, the 71,000 additional admin staff are not part of the NHS. ONS defines them as being in "public administration", no doubt administering tax credits.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker